Christianity's answer to ancient prehistorical facts?

Question

What is Christianity's answer for historic human documentation dating back 5000BC; or other such occurances proven to be true such as prehistoric animals, dinosaur bones from 50 million years ago, 100 million year old rocks, Egyptian hyroglifics etc..///// things which blatently contradict the Garden of Eden as the proposed beginning fo the Earth a few thousand years ago

Answer 1

Wrong section, bud. And by the way, some Christians believe some parts of the Bible are figurative. Good night!

Answer 2

only a idea right here-- yet i do not imagine the tale of the backyard because that's informed, is a BAM it befell basically that quick. The time measurments in the bible are patently off from our own. each thing seems to take a lot longer than we assume of that's going to so at the same time as it took God 7 days to creat the earth and backyard it might want to were a lot a lot longer than that to us now. also, it would not say that he did not evolve his artwork. Like a potter would not basically blink and performance a pot; they start up with a multitude of clay and start up molding. And at the same time as making pottery by ability of hand, no 2 products are thoroughly a similar. Thats why there are a style of human beings, and an countless collection of animal and plant existence right here. God may have all started with a tiny little cellular of existence and worked outward. the accurate outcome replaced into 2 finished products (Adam and Eve) that were featured in the explanatory tale. It would not say God did not make human beings- possibly they basically weren't reported. evaluate it this manner, automobile makers do not take each automobile they make to the practice, they in undemanding words take the finest of what they have made. The Bible would not allow you to know each thing and that i do not imagine there'd be adequate paper if it did. I agree that God created the heavens and the earth and each of the beings in it yet i imagine he created it initially to adapt and adjust. look at how a lot that's replaced basically considering that biblical circumstances of Jesus. Now, thats my opinion and it is also evolving. human beings are loose to pick on what they be counted on so I also respect others view factors. I do my best to study between the strains.

Answer 3

What if Adam and Eve were simply two of the first humans on the planet. Millions of years old, not quite the dazzing biblical urbanites that the modern church may paint them to be. Who is to say that they won't be excavated by a Leakey someday and shown to the world. What if the first people on the evolutionary scale were also the first people God created for the planet? Science and religion merge.

Answer 4

Christianity, first of all, is a faith based upon the historical events of mankind. There is no archaeological fact that controverts its historical reliability till this day.

Higher criticism had presented many facts that seemed to point towards the unreliability of the Bible, however, with recent findings, these arguments had been refuted one by one.

Of course, there are many questions that baffles our mind still, however, given the track record of the Bible's historical reliability, I think it is only fair that we engage these questions with the benefit of the doubt in mind.

First of all, the Bible does record the existence of dinosaurs. Reading the Bible carefully, you will realize that no living creature matches the descriptions of behemoth and Leviathan. However, if you grab your kid’s dinosaur book, you will notice several possible matches for each one. Unlike other cultures, the divinely inspired authors gave accurate descriptions with, upon investigation with recent findings of dinosaur remains, almost no mythical elaborations at all. Read Job 40:15-24

Secondly, Radiometric (radioactive) dating does not yield results that are as consistent as many books would have you believe. For example, Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon dating (tests used for dating volcanic rock) rely on the assumption that no radiogenic Argon exists in the rocks when they form—an assumption that is not true. With no consistent starting point or “zero age,” the rock ages reported by the test can vary dramatically, (depending on the amount of radiogenic Argon they started with).

There is another radioactive dating method called “fission track dating,” so named because the decay of Uranium 238 creates a minor disruption in the material that scientists call a “track.” Unfortunately, it has results that differ from the other radiometric methods. For example, a rock in Nigeria dated 95 million years old with Potassium-Argon dating, and 750 million years old using Uranium-Helium dating measured only 30 million years old with fission track dating. Do you see how the scientist could control the age reported for the geologic layer by specifying the test method?

There is one documented case where a single lump of tuff (a type of porous rock) contained components which individually dated at 1.87 million years, 25 million years, and 500 million years old. Now ask yourself, if you can get such large discrepancies within a single lump, how accurately do you believe that these testing methods define the ages of layers of the earth where fossils are found?

Yes, there is a “more accurate” radioactive dating method available called “isochron dating.” You can get an overview of isochron dating by clicking on this sentence. This dating technique does have a problem, though. It is designed to measure times on the order of a billion (1,000,000,000) years or more. Therefore everything you measure with this dating technique will seem to have great age.

For example, if you wanted to measure the distance between Los Angeles and New York, you could fly a jet airplane at a constant speed and measure the time the flight takes. Knowing the speed and time, you can calculate the distance. Now, what would happen if you used the same technique to measure the length of a house you flew over on the way to New York? It would give you bad results because you could not measure the time it took to fly over the house accurately enough to get a good answer. The same is true if you use isochron dating to measure something that is only a few thousand years old.

Another problem arises when you submit a sample for testing. Because of the variations that we just mentioned, the people operating the equipment will ask you for an estimated age of the item—before they run the test. This is true of both radiometric dating (used for igneous rock) and Carbon 14 dating (used for things that were once living).

Did you notice what happened? The scientist biased the results by determining the desired result before starting. Then, they chose a method that will give them the results they expect. This is not correct scientific procedure. How would you like it if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluated products only after they predicted the results?

So these "facts" that science offers has many presuppositions. It has set out to prove what it wanted to prove all along. For academics who preach an open mind, they have incredibly narrow minds isn't it?

When did the Bible say that Eden is the beginning of the Earth? Read Genesis 1. God started working on Earth when Earth already existed. So how can the beginning of the earth equate to the beginning of Eden? See, this are misconceptions about Christianity, sadly, many Christians are the perpetrators of these false beliefs due to their misunderstanding.

I'm unable to answer the part on Egyptian Hieroglyphics because I do not see why it contradicts the Bible. Care to elaborate more on this, so that I may look for the answer? However, many expert linguists can prove that the world's languages can be traced to one source, pointing to the evidence that once upon a time, all humans had the same language. This sheds light upon the possible reliability of the Tower of Babel story in the Book of Genesis.

Proving the Bible reliable is not easy and certainly cannot be based on only a few points. Rather it is the cumulative evidence spread over a spectrum of subjects and cross-examinations that it is able to survive in it's earliest form even after so many years.

This is the answer I gave to a similar question u had posted. I did it hear any replies from u, and instead of conversing your thoughts with us, u have started another similar thread.

Seems like u are not looking for answers but rather, are trying to prove what u had set out to prove. Shows a lot about ur character my friend, masking narrow-mindedness in a facade of open-mindedness.

Answer 5

Science is full of crap, carbon dating is a load and so is the equations used to measure the distance of stars. They just run with theories until as many idiots as possible believe it to be "fact". Post this in the religion section next time.
-NmD!

Answer 6

First off, I can tell you right off the bat that no Scientist has any acurate way of telling what age the earth or bones are. Egyption Hirolifics? They carved smybols into rocks, and idolized cats.

Answer 7

uhm, Singles & Dating here...???